Should Windows 98/ME still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers?

[Cowcaster88]

It is time to move on.

While 98se was a good operating system for the time XP has surely surpassed it in quality and dependablity. Even alot of software developers don't make software for it any longer. Hell even alot of software developers don't make software for Windows XP without SP1. Back in the Windows 9x days I was under the idea that if it worked don't bother to upgrade. I tried that idea until I had to upgrade to SP1, or else I couldn't get on the school network.

 

[Super Mario]

It is time to move on.

While 98se was a good operating system for the time XP has surely surpassed it in quality and dependablity. Even alot of software developers don't make software for it any longer. Hell even alot of software developers don't make software for Windows XP without SP1. Back in the Windows 9x days I was under the idea that if it worked don't bother to upgrade. I tried that idea until I had to upgrade to SP1, or else I couldn't get on the school network.

WIndows 9X was not a fine OS for its time. It was always a complete and utter POS compared to what we could have and should have had. OS/2 WARP would have blown Windows 9X out of the water back in the day, but it was never given a chance because of Microsoft's anti competitive practices that forced an inferior OS down our throats.

WIndows 9X wasn't even a real OS but rather a pseudo 32-bit DOS extended shell. That is why it was never an ok OS in my mind.

 

[ethos747474nikon8989]

Well yes I think that there should be support for 9X. A lot of software that was extremely expensive and not cost efficent to replace was built around 9X. My company uses an oddball accounting software for non profit companies. It will only run in a DOS environment and there is no support for it. The fun part is that I had to get it to print checks to a modern laser printer.

I made it work so that I could get a check, it definitly was not fun since the company is now defunct.

 

[Super Mario]

Well yes I think that there should be support for 9X. A lot of software that was extremely expensive and not cost efficent to replace was built around 9X. My company uses an oddball accounting software for non profit companies. It will only run in a DOS environment and there is no support for it. The fun part is that I had to get it to print checks to a modern laser printer.

I made it work so that I could get a check, it definitly was not fun since the company is now defunct.

Maybe in special situations, but give me one reason why games and hardware deisgned for the home consumer market that require a 1GHz or faster CPU to run should support it. Flat out no reason. Windows 9X support for new hardware and software released on the market should have died as far back as 2002 excpet for special situations like a company that relies on proprietary software or hardware that only runs under WIndows 9X.

I just cringed in disgust to see Windows 9X have support all the way up to the GeForce 6800 series video cards and the NForce 2 and higher AMD chipsets. Windows 9X had no place running modern software on fast systems in the gamers community as far back as 2002!!!

 

[The Cobra]

My Grandfather's 1994 Packard Bell Pentium 66Mhz System and 256MB of RAM. It runs Windows 95 (OSR 2.1) running an older version of AOL software. All he does is surf the web and email his air force buddies. He has it hooked up to a 512k dsl line with simple anti-virus and anti-spyware programs and Office 97. That machine is still peppy.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

WIndows 9X was not a fine OS for its time. It was always a complete and utter POS compared to what we could have and should have had. OS/2 WARP would have blown Windows 9X out of the water back in the day, but it was never given a chance because of Microsoft's anti competitive practices that forced an inferior OS down our throats.

WIndows 9X wasn't even a real OS but rather a pseudo 32-bit DOS extended shell. That is why it was never an ok OS in my mind.

Did you try and game on OS/2?

And I want to point out NT 4.0 wasn't a gamers paradise either...

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Gorankar]

Is this argument still going on.. ???? In case no-one has noticed, official Win9x support has been dropped by just about everyone already.. Ati, Nv, MS (except for the IE updates), your highend games mostly have abandoned it as well.. I'm sorry some of you hate win9x so much.. I had very few problems with it myself, and still use it on a legacy game box..
Can we just let this thread die, as win9x gasps it's final few breaths????..

 

[Dan_D]

Hell no. Anything that used a shell on top of MS-DOS needed to DIE back in the early 90's. It's sad that it took Microsoft 10+ years to finally move to a totally new 32bit OS when they already had it with the first commercial released of Windows NT 3.1. Granted I realize that software manufacturers and some business customers were the reason behind this, but it was appaling.

If it hadn't been for all the issues making games work on Windows NT and Windows 2000 (Back in the day) I would have always run those instead of Windows 9x.

 

[Super Mario]

Did you try and game on OS/2?

And I want to point out NT 4.0 wasn't a gamers paradise either...

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

That is only because not many developers wrote games for Windows NT 4.0 nor OS/2. And of the very few that did, they sure didn't write many games for those opertaing systems.

If devlopers wrote a lot of games for OS/2 and/or Windows NT 4.0 back in the day, I bet the performance would have been better than it was for those same 99% of games that were written for the worst OS core being Windows 9X.

So the only reason NT 4.0 wasn't a gamers paradise is because devlopers didn't write many games for it. They also didn't write many games for OS/2.

 

[Super Mario]

Hell no. Anything that used a shell on top of MS-DOS needed to DIE back in the early 90's. It's sad that it took Microsoft 10+ years to finally move to a totally new 32bit OS when they already had it with the first commercial released of Windows NT 3.1. Granted I realize that software manufacturers and some business customers were the reason behind this, but it was appaling.

If it hadn't been for all the issues making games work on Windows NT and Windows 2000 (Back in the day) I would have always run those instead of Windows 9x.

AMEN!! I totally agree with you!!

 

[swatbat]

I seem to remember problems with windows 98se running on machines faster then 2 ghz. Newer machines would run it sometimes ok and sometimes with issues. Sure one can argue where a mfg has not upgraded a software package to run on faster systems but in those cases a single board computer can take care of it and still run 98 in many cases. Why should via/nvidia/ati/intel invest a lot of money trying to make windows 98 fully work with sata, pci express, hd audio when the amount of people that would take advantage of it are less then the costs to make it work. With the consultants I work with I've been deploying virtual pc to run older software that has to be run and most of it so far has worked under it. I know somethings will not take in it and we have been dealing with them as they come along. Remember when microsoft made windows 2000 they wanted it to be the "switch" os that they moved everyone to the nt systems insted of 9x. They were unable to because too many developers were still running 16bit code and had not upgraded it. They have exteneded 9x's life span because of things like this. Really people just need to move on.

 

[Dan_D]

I seem to remember problems with windows 98se running on machines faster then 2 ghz. Newer machines would run it sometimes ok and sometimes with issues. Sure one can argue where a mfg has not upgraded a software package to run on faster systems but in those cases a single board computer can take care of it and still run 98 in many cases. Why should via/nvidia/ati/intel invest a lot of money trying to make windows 98 fully work with sata, pci express, hd audio when the amount of people that would take advantage of it are less then the costs to make it work. With the consultants I work with I've been deploying virtual pc to run older software that has to be run and most of it so far has worked under it. I know somethings will not take in it and we have been dealing with them as they come along. Remember when microsoft made windows 2000 they wanted it to be the "switch" os that they moved everyone to the nt systems insted of 9x. They were unable to because too many developers were still running 16bit code and had not upgraded it. They have exteneded 9x's life span because of things like this. Really people just need to move on.

The big problem is really that newer hardware isn't properly support or if it is supported, the drivers are half assed for Windows 98 and ME.

 

[PopeKevinI]

Depends. There's no reason to just abandon Win98SE...it's a solid operating system so long as you keep it securely behind a firewall and will do some things better than XP (running old games). Sound cards and video cards and the like should continue to support them.

That said, I don't think newer technologies should bother. If you make a motherboard for an X2 processor, don't bother with Win98 drivers. It can't take advantage of the hardware (dual cores) and would lead to people being disappointed in the product if they tried it on Win9x.

If the hardware can be used in a pre-XP system, they should support a pre-XP OS. PCIe, dual core anything, that sort of thing could be left out and no one would care.

 

[PopeKevinI]

Maybe in special situations, but give me one reason why games and hardware deisgned for the home consumer market that require a 1GHz or faster CPU to run should support it. Flat out no reason. Windows 9X support for new hardware and software released on the market should have died as far back as 2002 excpet for special situations like a company that relies on proprietary software or hardware that only runs under WIndows 9X.

I just cringed in disgust to see Windows 9X have support all the way up to the GeForce 6800 series video cards and the NForce 2 and higher AMD chipsets. Windows 9X had no place running modern software on fast systems in the gamers community as far back as 2002!!!

Windows 98SE was the current operating system when the 1Ghz chips hit the market. Without changing anything, there are some OEM systems with Win98 that meet or exceed the system requirements you're talking about. So yes, they should still be supported.

You really advocate yanking support a full year after a viable new OS has hit the market? (I say viable because 2000 wasn't a viable OS for gamers.) No, thanks.

People with perfectly good computers running 98 and ME still need to buy hardware sometimes. Modems get lightning-struck, sound cards stop working, video cards burn out. Are you saying that they should all just suck it up and spend $100+ on an OS upgrade that they don't need just to buy replacement parts?

 

[tskiller]

If you are fixing a broken part you should by a part that is ment to work with the system. You wouldnt buy parts for a 92 mustang from the 06 stock.

If they expect to keep their archaic operating system, they should also expect to have to buy archaic parts.

 

[sirholio]

I guess it all depends on what you're supporting. If it's assumed that you mean for new products, then no. If you're speaking of leaving the system alone, and not putting new hardware or software on, then they probably already have someone who does that anyway. so, again probably not.

 

[PopeKevinI]

If you are fixing a broken part you should by a part that is ment to work with the system. You wouldnt buy parts for a 92 mustang from the 06 stock.

If they expect to keep their archaic operating system, they should also expect to have to buy archaic parts.

Thing is, they still make parts for 92 Mustangs. Seen a Radeon 7000 in a store lately? No. Why? Because they've been replaced by the 9200SE.

You've dubbed their OS archaic. It still works for them and they're happy with it. So long as there is demand for devices with Win98 drivers, companies will spend the few dollars necessary to write them so that they can sell more product.

 

[Super Mario]

You really advocate yanking support a full year after a viable new OS has hit the market? (I say viable because 2000 wasn't a viable OS for gamers.) No, thanks.

No I didn't say that about any OS. I was referring to that about WIndows 98/ME because they suck. However, Windows XP deserves to stick around for a LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG time after Vista is released because Windows XP is still an NT based OS and NT based operating systems are fine and still native to the same OS heritage Vista will be based on.